The other two graphs are misleading since they just show raw totals. Of course totals will increase over time since population increases over time as well. These should be shown as percentages.

Also, the Obama administration has been actively promoting use of food stamps. Im sure that has had an impact on the numbers as well.

And generally tightening its belt, practicing austerity-driven Hoover-nomics. Which would be consistent with the continuing increase in poverty, homelessness, and hunger that we're seeing.

Green shoots or austerity?

There have been some cuts but I doubt that would account for that rather large drop shown in graph 1.

This graph refers to a decline in overall federal spending which appears to be mostly a result of "winding down of defense spending in the mid-east".. according the article.

Last edited Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:34 PM - Edit history (1)

specific cuts in aid to the poor is not.

Public sector austerity: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/public-sector-austerity-in-one-graph/2012/06/11/gJQAv89NVV_blog.html

As to cutting aid to the poor, I was thinking specifically of the federal and widespread state cuts in unemployment benefits - but I'm not able to find a figure for that spending for the country as a whole. So I could be wrong. But here's some info:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/unemployment-benefits-cuts-unemployment_n_1514819.html
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CG8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fbusiness%2Feconomy%2Fextended-jobless-benefits-cut-in-eight-states%2F2012%2F05%2F10%2FgIQAX8X4GU_story.html&ei=_u_cT6mhK4f66QGo-LSkCw&usg=AFQjCNGDcEGJyyhFOe8eM-Dkp3-5l-aZiQ

are homeless people lining the sidewalks downtown b/c the mission makes them leave during the day. but we don't "see" them. they don't exist. and they're not in line for anything b/c there's no help for them.

for those who need them. Food Stamps are our modern form of bread lines. The safety net is what keeps us from looking like we did in the 1930s.

If so we would expect it to steadily rise as more and more boomers hit retirement.

And the next two really ought to be percentages rather than total numbers. Even if people were doing as well as they were in let's say 1970 the population has increased by over 50% since then so the total number of people on assistance would have been expected to increase.

You can't just look at the raw numbers for these things.

Also, what about government subsidies and tax relief for business?

Are those included as hand-outs?